Benthic Macroinvertebrate Analysis of Twelve Sites in Point Reyes National Seashore Using the California Stream Bioassessment Procedure

Prepared for:

National Park Service Point Reyes National Seashore Point Reyes Station, CA 94956

Prepared by:

Jon Lee Consulting 2250 Wilson Street, Suite C Arcata, CA 95521

And

Brannon Ketcham Hydrologist Point Reyes National Seashore Point Reyes Station, CA 94956

APRIL 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ...... 1

Methods ...... 2 Site Description ...... 2

Taxonomic Determination ...... 7 Analysis ...... 7 Results ...... 9 Russian River Index of Biotic Integrity ...... 16

Discussion ...... 17

Conclusions ...... 20

Literature Cited ...... 21

Appendices ...... 23

List of Figures

Map of Study Area ...... 3

Table 1a. Metric Scores (Olema Creek) ...... 11 Table 1b. Metric Scores (Schooner, Home Ranch, and Muddy Hollow Creeks) ...... 12

Figure 1. Mean Taxa Richness ...... 13

Figure 2. Mean EPT Taxa Richness ...... 13

Figure 3. Mean Modified EPT Index ...... 14

Figure 4. Mean % Dominant Taxon ...... 14

Figure 5. Mean Tolerance Value ...... 15

Figure 6. Mean Shannon's Diversity Index ...... 15

Figure 7. Mean Estimated Relative Abundance ...... 16

Table 2. RRIBI Sample Scores ...... 16 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Analysis of Twelve Sites in Point Reyes National Seashore Using the California Stream Reassessment Procedure

ABSTRACT Thirty-six benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected from twelve stream sites in Point Reyes National Seashore. Sample collection, laboratory processing, and taxa determination followed the California Stream Bioassessment Procedure for Point Source Pollution. Six biological metrics (Taxa Richness, EFT Taxa Richness, Modified EPT Index, Percent Dominant Taxon, Tolerance Value, Shannon's Diversity Index) were used for analysis. Metric scores from Olema Creek sample sites were compared individually while metric scores from the remaining sample sites were compared in pairs, above and below a disturbance. Metric scores were moderate to low for the sample sites evaluated. Metric scores suggest greater impairment at many of the downstream sites in comparison to upstream sites.

Aquatic Bioassessment Program Aquatic biomonitoring or bioassessment employs aquatic organism communities to evaluate the relative condition of an aquatic habitat Benthic macroinvertebrates (invertebrates that inhabit the bottom substrate of freshwater habitats for at least part of their life-cycle and are retained by a 500 micron mesh size) are one of the most promising groups of aquatic organisms being used (Rosenberg and Resh 1993). The advantages of using benthic macroinvertebrates for bioassessment are well documented (Plafkin et al. 1989; Rosenberg and Resh 1993; Wisseman 1996). These advantages include:

• macroinvertebrates are common and abundant in most aquatic habitats; • the sessile nature of aquatic macroinvertebrates allows effective spatial analysis of disturbance; • relatively long life-cycles (often more than one year) allow for temporal monitoring for disturbance; • adequate taxonomic keys exist for most groups allowing for generic determinations; and • benthic macroinvertebrates communities are a direct measure of biotic integrity.

A primary problem in the use of benthic macroinvertebrates for bioassessment is the difficulty of quantitative sampling techniques (Rosenberg and Resh 1993). A large number of samples are required to achieve accurate quantitative results. The high number of samples translates to time- consuming and costly laboratory sample processing and taxa determination. Rapid assessment approaches help make bioassessment more economically feasible. A Rapid Bioassessment Protocol published by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (Plafkin et al. 1989) has been adapted and modified for use in California by the California Department of Fish and Game (1999). The California Stream Bioassessment Procedure (CSBP) outlines protocols for benthic macroinvertebrate sample collection, laboratory sample processing, and sample analysis.

1 Methods The Seashore collected benthic macroinvertebrates from 12 locations within Point Reyes National Seashore. Staff followed CSBP collection protocols for point source pollution. For each location, a riffle was identified, and three transects were performed across the riffle. Each transect is evaluated individually, with results grouped by location. Samples were collected in spring 1999, fall 1999, and spring 2000. This last set of samples was collected because the spring 1999 samples were not adequately preserved and could not be used for the macroinvertebrate sample evaluation.

Upstream/downstream pairs were selected for sample collection on Schooner Creek, Home Ranch Creek, and Muddy Hollow. Six sites along the mainstem of Olema Creek were also sampled. At each site, PORE staff used the CSBP protocol for transect selection, sample processing, and the visual habitat survey. Three transects were selected randomly for each riffle. For each transect, the composite sample includes benthic macroinvertebrates from three sample sites along the transect Consistent sampling effort (i.e. the same person to wash the bugs into the net) was used for the spring and fall samples. The samples were processed and preserved in the field.

The Seashore committed to randomly pick 300 bugs from each integrated transect, and has contracted with a consultant to perform the Biological Data Analysis. The complete sampling protocol is included as Attachment C to the Water Quality Monitoring Study Plan.

Bioassessment Sample Site Descriptions Olema Creek Olema Creek is the largest undammed tributary of Lagunitas Creek. The 14.5 square mile watershed flows north through the Olema Valley, the landward expression of the San Andreas Fault Zone (SFZ). It's confluence with Lagunitas Creek lies at the head of the ecologically significant Tomales Bay. The watershed is significant as it supports viable populations of federally threatened coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Other threatened and endangered (T&E) aquatic and terrestrial species including California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and the California freshwater shrimp (Syncharis pacifica) occur in the watershed. Because it is the centerpiece of fisheries management within Point Reyes National Seashore, Olema Creek is the subject of extensive monitoring to determine the effectiveness of various stream protection measures - including exclusion fencing and habitat restoration.

Currently, 35% of the Olema Creek watershed is within the designated Pastoral Zone and managed for beef cattle. The only confined facility in the valley at this time is the Stewart Horse stable, located in the central portion of the watershed. Point Reyes National Seashore Macroinvertebrate Sampling Program

Sample Location Map

The Seashore is interested in determining the impacts of ongoing beef operations within the watershed on the condition of threatened anadromous fish populations. Sample sites for aquatic invertebrates were selected based upon their location in the watershed and different intensity of land use. The six sites within the Olema Creek watershed cover the major area of agricultural use. All six sites are also sampled as part of the ambient stream sampling sites, and three (OL1, OL3, and OL4) are within fish index reach monitoring sites.

Beginning upstream at OL6, the sample point above the Blueline Creek confluence is primarily a gravel bed with alder and bay making up the broad riparian zone. Upstream there are significant sources of fine sediment as the channel meanders and cuts through the San Andreas Fault zone. Much of the watershed above this point is intermittent, with large reaches of the stream drying in the late summer. Nearly all of the agricultural uses occur in tributaries that tend to be characterized as intermittent. The Seashore has worked to address riparian fencing on all perennial streams on Olema Creek. North and 500 meters downstream of this site is OL5, at the north Five Brooks Bridge.

The channel is stable with the sampled riffle comprised of gravel. The riparian zone is limited by development with some cover provided by alder and bay trees. This area was accessible to cattle until 1999, a riparian exclusion fence was constructed as part of an Eagle Scout project. Fall 1999 sample collection would reflect the impacts of summer access to the channel by livestock.

Inputs to the channel between OL5 and OL6 are Blueline and Giacomini Creeks. Grazing impacts are noticeable from both watersheds, though actions were taken on Blueline to exclude cattle (a one kilometer riparian exclosure completed 1998).

Site OL4 is located below Truttman Gulch, nearly three miles downstream. The site is tucked away from most impacts and is considered a very stable and highly productive section of the stream. The bed is comprised of gravel to small gravel, with alder and some douglas fir providing cover. Inputs to Olema between OL5 and OL4 come from agricultural operations to the east, and the wilderness to the west The Stewart horse stables are located approximately 2 miles upstream of the site. This study was not designed to assess potential impacts from this facility.

OL3 is located above the Vedanta bridge. The reach between OL4 and OL3 is protected from direct access by cattle, but the riparian zone is limited to the edge of the stream terrace. At the sample site, the bed is primarily gravel with some small gravel, and riparian cover is comprised by bay and alder. Below this point the stream flows through the developed section of Olema, to site OL2 at the Bear Valley Bridge. Inputs from urban runoff and septic sources are likely, with the heaviest human impact to this reach of the channel. Site OL2 is comprised of the gravel riffle 20 meters downstream of the hydrologic monitoring station. The channel is relatively stable, though a good volume of sand moves through the channel in most years. Alder squeezed along the stream banks comprise the riparian cover. The terrace is used for grazing to the west and is impacted by development on the east.

Site OL1 is located downstream of the Stewart Flat, 1.5 miles downstream of the Bear Valley Bridge. The substrate is primarily small gravel and sand, and riparian cover is provided by willow. Between OL2 and OL1, cattle grazing and the Olema Campground are the primary influences to the condition of the stream. Until the mid-1980s, this reach of Olema Creek was severely degraded with little to no riparian cover. In cooperation with the Seashore, volunteers from the Tomales Bay Association constructed a fence to protect nearly one kilometer of stream for summer rearing habitat

Sample Locations • OL6 - mainstem above Blueline Creek confluence • OL5 - mainstem just above Five Brooks Bridge (north) • OL4 - mainstem @Truttman Gulch • OL3 - mainstem above Vedanta Bridge • OL2 - mainstem just below Bear Valley Road Bridge • OL1 - mainstem, below Stewart flat

Schooner Creek From its headwaters to the discharge into Schooner Bay, East Schooner Creek runs along Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. Through the gulch, the road and stream are squeezed into a narrow bottom, with little room for the stream to meander. Habitat is limited in this incised system, but the stream is perennial and quite productive. There has been ambient water quality monitoring performed in Schooner Creek at the lower site (DES2). There have also been anecdotal reports of ocean run steelhead migrating upstream.

The upper sample site just above the Mt Vision Road crossing is made up of fresh gravel and sand. Angular granitic substrate material is very common, and in spring sampling, the bed was highly turned over indicating a mobile bed. The lower site is below the Sir Francis Drake Road crossing, and is located in the depositional reach of the stream. The bed is highly mobile with sand and small gravel the dominant substrate material. Impacts to the stream include alteration to hydrology because of the road and increased sedimentation.

• DEI - below Sir Francis Drake Blvd Crossing (Rogers Ranch) {downstream} • DE2 - Mt Vision Road Crossing {upstream} Missing this page from hard copy of the original.

We will attempt to rectify this problem.

• DE5 - Muddy Hollow Creek - 500 meters above road crossing ^upstream} • DE6 - Muddy Hollow Creek - adjacent to pumphouse {downstream}

Taxonomic Determination Specimens were determined to the lowest practical taxonomic level with the aid of a stereomicroscope (8-50X magnification) or when necessary a compound microscope (400X magnification). A standard taxonomic level (CAMLnet Short List of Taxonomic Effort) was followed with the following exceptions: very early instars and some pupae, the dipteran family Ceratopogonidae, and the stonefly families Capniidae and Leuctridae. The following taxonomic keys were used: Usinger 1956; Cook 1974; Lauck 1979; Wiederholm 1983; Brinkhurst 1986; Stewart and Stark 1988; Pennak 1989; Merritt and Cummins 19%; Wiggens 19%. Within each sample discrete taxa were enumerated, placed in a vial containing 70% ethanol, and labeled with the sample date, sample I.D., taxa name, and determiners initials.

Analysis The Rapid Bioassessment Protocol uses a multi-metric approach to bioassessment data analysis. Metrics are numerical measures which attempt to characterize the macroinvertebrate community sampled. The metrics are then compared to a reference site (if one has been determined) in a non- point source sample design (Plafkin et al. 1989) or, to control and test sites in a point source sample design. Primary metrics include Richness Measures, Composition Measures, Tolerance/Intolerance Measures, and Functional Feeding Group Measures. Following is a brief description of metrics calculated for the Point Reyes samples which have proven to be useful in the Pacific Northwest (Fore et al. 19%; Karr and Chu 1999) and Northern California (Harrington et al. 1999).

Taxa Richness A richness measure. The total number of distinct taxa in a sample. Reflects health of the community through measurement of the variety of taxa present Generally increases with increasing water quality, habitat diversity, and/or habitat suitability (Plafkin et al. 1989).

EPT Richness A richness measure. The total number of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera taxa present. Generally sensitive to disturbance. Expected to decrease with human induced disturbance.

Modified EPT Index A composition measure. Proportion of sample composed of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera taxa minus the families Baetidae (Ephemeroptera) and (Trichoptera). For this index the genera and will be considered to belong to the family . Baetids and hydropsychids are considered more tolerant of human induced 7 disturbance than other families within these groups (Harrington et al. 1999). Expected to decrease with degraded habitat

Percent Dominant Taxon A Tolerance/Intolerance measure. Percent contribution of the most numerous taxon present in a sample. A community dominated by relatively few taxa would indicate environmental stress (Plafldn et al. 1989). Expected to increase with stress.

Tolerance Value A tolerance/Intolerance measure. A biotic index which evaluates tolerance of benthic macroinvertebrates to organic enrichment Taxa tolerant of organic enrichment are also generally tolerant of warm water, fine sediment, and heavy filamentous algal growth (Wisseman 19%). Scale is 0 through 10. 0 being highly intolerant and 10 being highly tolerant of organic enrichment The tolerance value is calculated as:

TV=∑(niti)/N

where ni is the number of individuals in a taxon, ti is the tolerance value for that taxon, and N is the total number of individuals in the sample. Value expected to increase with stressed environment. Tolerance values are from California Department of Fish and Game (2000) listed values, however are subject to modification as more data is gathered.

Shannon's Diversity Index (H) A diversity index is a mathematical measure of taxa diversity in a community. Shannon's index accounts for both abundance and evenness of the taxa present. The proportion of taxa i relative to the total number of taxa (pj) is calculated, and then multiplied by the natural log of this proportion (Inpi). The resulting product is summed across taxa, and multiplied by -1:

H = ∑pilnpi

Diversity is expected to decrease with disturbance.

In addition to the metrics, relative abundance was estimated for each sample based on the subsampling data. The number of specimens picked from each grid in the subsampling tray was used to get an estimate of relative abundance of macroinvertebrates in the sample.

Metrics were calculated for each macroinvertebrate sample. A mean for each metric at each sample site was calculated from the samples at each site. Metric means were compared across sites (Olema Creek) and between upstream and downstream sites (Schooner, Muddy Hollow, and Home Ranch Creeks). 8 For a regional comparison metric scores were compared with the Russian River Index of Biological Integrity (RRIBI) (Harrington et al. 1999). The RRIBI scoring criteria is based on a visual examination of values for the six biological metrics described above based on samples collected from the Russian River Watershed, California (Harrington et al. 1999). The visual distribution scoring system uses three categories for the metric values: 5 (low impairment level), 3 (moderately impaired), and 1 (highly impaired). The RRIBI allows for a quick visual comparison of scores among sites. Harrington et al. (1999) recommend using the RRIBI in other central California coastal streams to test its usefulness outside of the Russian River Watershed.

RESULTS A total of 94 taxa were determined from the 36 samples (subsamples) collected. Taxa lists, with number of each taxon found in samples, are included for each sample in Appendix B. The showed the greatest diversity with 76 taxa represented. The Diptera (true flies) displayed the greatest diversity within the orders with 26 taxa represented (including 8 cranefly (Tipulidae) genera). Water mites (Acarina or Hydracarina) were also well represented with 8 families determined.

Taxa Richness Taxa richness ranged from a high of 36 in sample DE2-T3, to a low of 16 in sample DE3-T3 (Table Ib). Mean taxa richness for the samples from each site ranged from a high of 30 at site OL4 to a low of 18 at site DE3 (Table 1; Figure 1).

EPT Taxa Richness EFT taxa richness ranged from a high of 16 in samples OL4-T2 and OL4-T3 to a low of 5 in samples DE1-T2 and DE3-T1 (Table 1). Mean EFT taxa richness was highest at site OL4 (15.7) and lowest at site DE3 (5.7) (Table 1; Figure 2).

Modified EPT Index The modified EPT index ranged from a high of 74 in sample OL5-T3 to a low of 1.4 in sample DE1-T2 (Table 1). The mean modified EPT index value was highest at site OL5 (52.3) and lowest at site DE3 (11.2) (Table 1; Figure 3).

Percent Dominant Taxon The percent dominant taxon ranged from a low of 16 in sample OL3-T1 to a high of 70.7 in sample OL5-T3 (Table la). The mean percent dominant taxon was lowest at site OL4 (20.7) and highest at site OL5 (49.8) followed closely by site DE3 (49.3) (Table 1; Figure 4).

Tolerance Value Tolerance value ranged from a low of 2.17 in sample OL5-T3 to a high of 6.51 in sample 9 DE3-T1 (Table 1). The lowest mean tolerance value occurred at site OL5 (3.1) while the highest mean tolerance value was recorded at site DE3 (6.0) (Table 1; Figure 5).

Shannon's Diversity Index Shannon's diversity index values ranged from a high of 2.7 in samples DE5-T2, OL3 Tl and T2, and OL4-T1, to a low of 1.3 in sample DE3-T1 (Table 1). The highest mean Shannon's diversity value was recorded at site OL3 (2.7) and the lowest value was recorded at site DE3 (1.6) (Table 1; Figure 6).

Estimated Relative Abundance Estimated relative abundance ranged from 610 macroinvertebrates in sample DE5-T3 to 19440 macroinvertebrates in sample OL2-T3. Relative abundance would be estimated at several thousand individuals for a majority of the samples while the only sample (besides DE5-T3) with less than an estimated one thousand individuals was DE1-T2 (888). Estimated relative abundance values are given in Figure 7.

10

Sample I.D. Taxa EPT Taxa Modified % Tolerance Shannon's Richness Richness EPT Index Taxon Value D.I. OL1-0999-T1 26 9 19.9 25 3.7 2.4 OL1-0999-T2 23 7 16.8 23.1 4 2.4 OL1-0999-T3 30 12 23.7 38 3.7 2.4 OL1 MEAN 26.3 9.3 20.1 28.7 3.8 2.4 OL2-0999-T1 25 11 35.9 29.9 3.9 2.2 OL2-0999-T2 26 14 26.6 41.5 4.3 2.3 OL2-0999-T3 25 11 27.3 38.3 4.2 2.2 OL2 MEAN 25.3 12 29.9 36.6 4.2 2.2 OL3-0999-T1 27 14 29.7 16 3.9 2.7 OL3-0999-T2 27 12 20.3 19.9 4.3 2.7 OL3-0999-T3 31 15 12.5 32.5 4.7 2.6 OL3 MEAN 28.3 13.7 20.8 22.8 4.3 2.7 OL4-0999-T1 31 15 50.7 17.2 2.8 2.7 OL4-0999-T2 28 16 34.7 21.1 3.6 2.5 OL4-0999-T3 31 16 39.1 23.8 3.3 2.6 OL4 MEAN 30 15.7 41.5 20.7 3.2 2.6 OLS-0999-T1 24 14 20.6 28.7 4.4 2.3 OL5-0999-T2 27 14 62.4 50 2.7 1.9 OL5-0999-T3 21 12 74 70.7 2.2 1.2 OL5 MEAN 24 13.3 52.3 49.8 3.1 1.8 OL6-0999-T1 26 12 52.2 43 3.1 2 OL6-0999-T2 30 15 25.9 36.5 4.3 2.4 OL6-0999-T3 29 15 26.5 29 4.5 2.6 OL6 MEAN 28.3 14 34.9 36.2 4 2.3

Table 1a.. Metric scores for Olema Creek samples.

11 Sample I.D. Taxa EPT Taxa Modified % Dominant Tolerance Shannon's Richness Richness EPT Index Taxon Value D.I. DE1-0999-T1 21 9 23.2 20.8 5.1 2.5 DE1-0999-T2 25 5 1.4 27.5 5.9 2.2 DE1-0999-T3 22 8 12.4 28.1 5.3 2.3 DEI MEAN 22.7 7.3 12.3 25.5 5.5 2.3 DE2-0999-T1 19 8 12 48.5 5.8 1.8 DE2-0999-T2 29 14 11.6 32.1 5.8 2.1 DE2-0999-T3 36 14 14.8 32.1 5.5 1.8 DE2 MEAN 28 12 12.8 37.6 5.7 2.2 DE3-0999-T1 17 5 6.3 60.9 6.5 1.3 DE3-0999-T2 21 6 12.1 50 6.1 1.6 DE3-0999-T3 16 6 15.1 36.9 5.5 1.8 DE3 MEAN 18 5.7 11.2 49.3 6 1.6 DE4-0999-T1 26 12 21.5 31.5 4.1 2.3 DE4-0999-T2 22 11 20.6 32.2 4.1 2.1 DE4-0999-T3 19 10 22 27.1 4.1 2.2 DE4 MEAN 22.3 11 21.4 30.5 4.1 2.2 DE5-0999-T1 27 14 30.6 25.9 4.5 2.5 DE5-0999-T2 28 12 35.9 16.6 4.3 2.7 DE5-0999-T3 24 11 17.5 33.9 4.8 2.2 DE5 MEAN 26.3 12.3 28 25.5 4.5 2.5 DE6-0999-T1 23 11 28.8 32.4 4.2 2.2 DE6-0999-T2 20 11 22.3 34.9 4.1 2.1 DE6-0999-T3 23 12 27.6 31.2 4.1 2.1 DE6 MEAN 22 11.3 26.2 32.8 4.1 2.1

Table 1b. Metric scores for Schooner, Home Ranch, and Muddy Hollow Creek samples.

12

Sample Site I.D.

13

14

15

Russian River Index of Biological Integrity The RRIBI assigns a score to the metric values and sums them for each sample to give a numeric rating of stream sites. Ratings can range from a high of 30 to a low of 6. RRIBI scores listed in Table 2 are based on the mean metric values for macroinvertebrate samples collected at each site (one sample at each of 3 transects). The high score for any of the sites was 18 (DE5, OL3, OL4, and OL6). The lowest score was 6 at site DE3. A score of 5 was not received for a metric at any site. Several scores of 1 were received, primarily at sites DEI, DE2, and DE3.

SAMPLE SITE DEI DE2 DE3 DE4 DE5 DE6 OL1 OL2 OL3 OL4 OL5 OL6 Biological Metric Taxa Richness 1 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 3 1 3 EPT Taxa 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 Modified EPT 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Index % Dominant Taxon 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 Tolerance Value 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Shannon's D.I. 3 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 Total Score 10 12 6 12 18 12 16 16 18 18 12 18 Table 2. RRIBI scores for biological metrics at each sample site (based on mean scores from 3 macroinvertebrate samples at each site).

16 DISCUSSION Site Comparisons: Olema Creek OL4 The metric scores suggest that site OL4 has the highest quality macroinvertebrate habitat of the sites sampled, as would be expected from the site description. Relatively intolerant taxa which are common in samples from this site include the mayfly Rhithrogena ((Heptageniidae) at OL4-T1), the stonefly Sweltsa (Chloroperlidae) and the Rhyacophila (). The most abundant taxon was the relatively intolerant caddisfly Lepidostoma followed by the relatively tolerant chironomid tribe Tanytarsini (Diptera). Relatively tolerant taxa in moderate abundance include the riffle beetles Optioservus and Zaitzevia (Elmidae), and the net-spinning caddis Hydropsyche (Hydropsychidae). Site OL4 apparently has the best habitat of the sites surveyed however the number of tolerant taxa common in the samples suggests less than optimum macroinvertebrate habitat

OL5 and OL6 OL5 and OL6 displayed similar metric scores. Scores for taxa richness, EFT taxa richness, % dominant taxon, and Shannon's D.I. were slightly better at site OL6. High scores for modified EFT taxa and tolerance value, and low scores for % dominant taxon and Shannon's D.I. at site OL5, can be attributed to large numbers of early instars of the trichopteran Lepidostoma () at this site. Dominant taxa at both sites include the shredder Lepidostoma and the collector Tanytarsini (Chironomidae). The dominant taxon in sample OL5-0999-T1 was the chironomid subfamily Orthocladiinae (Diptera). High numbers of Lepidostoma suggest adequate riparian input while high numbers of Tanytarsini may indicate high sediment amounts at these sites.

Site OL3 Site OL3 appears to be slightly more impacted than Site OL4. All of the metrics except Shannon's D.I. have marginally better scores at Site OL4. The chironomid tribe Tanytarsini is the dominant taxon in the samples from OL3. Also abundant within the samples are the following relatively tolerant groups: the mayflies Baetis and Diphetor (Baetidae), the blackfly Simulium (Simuliidae), and Zaitzevia. Lepidostoma is also common but less abundant than at the three upstream sites.

Site OL2 The dominant taxa at Site OL2 are, once again, Tanytarsini and Lepidostoma. A moderately high number of Optioservus also occur at this site. Site OL2 has the highest % dominant taxon of a tolerant group (Tanytarsini) of the sites collected within Olema Creek. EFT taxa richness is also lower than at the upstream sites however the remaining metric values are not dissimilar to sites OL5 and OL6. The high number of Lepidostoma suggest at least a moderate amount of riparian input to the stream. 17 Site OL1 Site OL1 has the lowest EPT richness and modified EPT index values of the Olema Creek sites. The dominant taxa at this site include Optioservus and the dipteran subfamily Orthocladiinae (Chironomidae). The elmid Zaitzevia is also fairly common as are Tanytarsini, Sweltsa, Hydropsyche, and Lepidostoma. Apart from EPT taxa richness and modified EPT index the metric values do not vary considerably from the upstream sites.

The metrics suggest that Site OL4 has the highest quality macroinvertebrate habitat among the sites sampled. EPT taxa richness suggest sites OL2 and OL1 have the most highly impacted habitat among the sites collected. The remaining metrics do not suggest a direct upstream to downstream decline in habitat quality.

OL3, OL4, and OL6 share the highest RRIBI score (18) among the Olema Creek sites. Sites OL1 and OL2 follow with a score of 16 and site OL5 received a score of 12. Lowest taxa richness among the Olema Creek sites and high number of Lepidostoma at site OL5, assuring low scores for % dominant taxon and Shannon's D.I., contribute to the low score. Based on the site descriptions, the RRIBI may be a valuable index for detecting disturbance within Olema Creek. The RRIBI scoring criteria may be too rigorous for this small watershed, however, in view of the fact that no sites received a low impairment (5) score.

Schooner Creek DEI and DE2 Site DEI displays low EPT taxa richness and modified EPT index scores and high tolerance value scores. Dominant taxa within the samples are all considered tolerant of disturbance and suggest an impaired habitat. These include Optioservus, Tanytarsini, Diphetor, the ubiquitous amphipod Hyalella (Hyalellidae), and the estuarine isopod Gnorimosphaeroma (Sphaeromaridae). Although aJist of sediment tolerant taxa is wanting for north coastal California, these taxa could probably all be considered sediment tolerant Interestingly the nemourid stonefly Zapada cinctipes (a shredder) is also common at this site suggesting some riparian input to the stream. Hawkins et al. (2000) note however, that ZopodalMalenka, Tanytarsini, and Baetis have been observed in light- or nutrient- enriched streams, which may be a factor at this site.

The taxa richness and EPT taxa richness metric values at the upstream site, DE2, suggest better overall habitat than at DEL Modified EPT index and tolerance value scores suggest disturbed habitat, however. Dominant taxa include Tanytarsini and Gnorimosphaeroma. Optioservus, Diphetor, and Zapada cinctipes are also common taxa in the samples. Several macroinvertebrates considered intolerant were also collected at Site DE2, though none were common. Included are the dipteran Glutops (Pelecorhynchidae), and the trichopterans Cryptochia (Limnephilidae) and Fonda (). Other taxa typical of small, cool streams collected at DE2 are the dipteran Boreochlus (Chironomidae) and the stonefly Soyedina (Nemouridae). The inclusion of these taxa in the 18 samples and the relatively high number of taxa collected (particularly in sample DE2-0999-T3) suggest a small cool stream. The large number of tolerant taxa, however, suggest some form of perturbation. It should be noted that they latest edition of Pennak (1989) does not include Gnorimosphaeroma in the taxonomic key. This estuarine isopod was determined using an earlier edition. It may be common in lower sections of streams near marine waters (abundant here and in Mendocino County, CA). A literature search found little information on it. It would be interesting to gather more information on this critter and determine whether it can be a confounding influence on metrics or is indeed indicative of impaired habitat

Home Ranch Creek Sites DE3 and DE4 Metric scores from site DE3 were the poorest from any site sampled. Taxa richness and EFT taxa richness were much lower than at any other site. A total of 8 EFT taxa were found in the three samples, easily the lowest number among the sites. The dominant taxon is the very tolerant amphipod Hyalella. Hyalella accounts for almost half (49.3%) of the specimens in the three samples. The second most dominant taxon is Optioservus. Together these taxa account for over 77% of the macroinvertebrates in the DE3 subsamples. The metric scores suggest that DE3 to be the most highly impaired site within this survey. Metric scores for site DE4 suggest a less impaired site than metric scores for site DE3. Each metric score suggests greater impairment at DE3 giving the strongest evidence of greater habitat disturbance at a downstream site compared to an upstream site of any pair of sites in this survey. The metric scores do, however, suggest an impaired habitat Dominant taxa include the disturbance tolerant Optioservus , Baetis and Hydropsyche. A facultative mayfly shredder Paraleptophlebia (Leptophlebiidae) and the stonefly family Nemouridae are also present suggesting some riparian input

Muddy Hollow Creek Sites DE5 and DE6 Sites DE5 and DE6 have metric scores which are similar, scores at DE5 suggesting somewhat better habitat The dominant taxon in samples from both sites is the elmid beetle Optioservus. The next dominant taxon from site DE5 samples is Gnorimosphaeroma and from site DE6 samples, Baetis. Each of these taxa is considered tolerant of disturbance, suggesting impairment at both sites. The shredder functional feeding group is relatively well represented in samples from both sites suggesting some riparian input Although displaying overall metric scores suggesting higher quality habitat than the other DE sites the macroinvertebrate assemblage suggests impairment at sites DE5 and DE6.

The high number of tolerant taxa suggest some form of perturbation at each of these sites. 19 Common, though not abundant at the sites, are taxa considered to be in the shredder functional feeding group suggesting some riparian input at each site, although as mentioned, Malenka/Zapada presence may also suggest enrichment in the streams. Also at each site (except DE3) are taxa generally considered to be representative of small cool creeks. The macroinvertebrate data suggest high temperatures or poor riparian cover may not be an impairment at these sites. Past and present land use practices suggest sedimentation may be the primary negative impact at these sites.

RRIBI scores were lower at the downstream sites at Schooner, Home Ranch, and Muddy Hollow Creeks. Scores for DE3 are the lowest scores given and are in line with the site description which indicates a highly impacted site. The RRIBI score (18) at site DE5 was the highest of the sample sites among these three creeks suggesting streambed stabilization may be occurring at this site as referred to in the site description.

CONCLUSIONS The metrics suggest that sample site OL4 had the least disturbed habitat among the sites. All metric scores from this site ranked either number one or number two among all sites. The metrics did not suggest an upstream to downstream trend in degree of disturbance within Olema Creek. They did suggest that sites OL1, OL2, and OL5 were the most impaired of the sites sampled. Schooner, Home Ranch, and Muddy Hollow Creeks each displayed metrics suggesting greater impairment at downstream sample sites than at upstream sites.

The Russian River Index of Biological Integrity can apparently detect disturbance impacts to the benthic macroinvertebrate community within Point Reyes National Seashore when comparing sites. Habitat impairment or disturbance is suggested at all of the benthic macroinvertebrate sample sites when the biological metrics from these sites are compared to the RRIBI. Whether this phenomenon is attributable to past and present land use practices or to the possibility that small coastal streams in this region may be naturally taxa and EPT taxa poor is worth further research. If benthic macroinvertebrate communities in this area differ naturally from the Russian River watershed, development of an Index of Biological Integrity for Point Reyes National Seashore may be warranted. It may be worth investigating whether a reference stream exists within Point Reyes National Seashore. A reference stream would be an effective comparison for metrics which were generated from samples collected within the Seashore.

20 LITERATURE CITED

California Department of Fish and Game. 1999. California Stream Bioassessment Procedure. Water Pollution Control Laboratory. Rancho Cordova, California. California Department of Fish and Game. 2000. ABAL Taxa List Water Pollution Control Laboratory. Rancho Cordova, California. Brinkhurst, R.0.1986. Guide to the freshwater aquatic microdrile oligochaetes of North America. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 84:1-259. Cook, D.R. 1974. Water mite genera and subgenera. Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute. 21:860 pp. Fore, L.S., J.R. Karr and R.W. Wisseman. 1996. Assessing invertebrate responses to human activities: evaluating alternative approaches. Journal North American Benthological Society. 15(2):212-231. Harrington, J.M., P. Ode and A. Montalvo. 1999. Russian River Index of Biological Integrity (RRIBI) for First to Third Order Streams. California Department of Fish and Game. Water Pollution Control Laboratory. Rancho Cordova, California. Hawkins, C.P., R.H. Norris, J.N. Hogue, and J.W. Feminella. 2000. Development and evaluation of predictive models for measuring the biological integrity of streams. Ecological Applications. 10(5): 1456-1477. Karr, J.R. and E.W. Chu. 1999. Restoring Life in Running Waters. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Lauck, D.L. 1979. Family Corixidae. pp. 87-123 in Menke, A.S. The semiaquatic and aquatic Hemiptera of California. Bulletin of the California Insect Survey No. 21. Merritt, R.W. and K.W. Cummins (eds.) 1996. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America. Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, Iowa. Pennak, R.W. 1978. Fresh-Water Invertebrates of the United States (2nd ed.). John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York 803 pp. Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh Water Invertebrates of the United States (3rd ed.). John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. 628 pp. Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers. Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. EPA 440-4-89-001. Office of Water Regulation and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Rosenberg, D.M. and V.H. Resh. 1993. Introduction to Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates. pp. 1-9 in D.M. Rosenberg and V.H. Resh (eds.). Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Chapman and Hall, New York. Stewart, K.W. and B.P. Stark. 1988. Nymphs of North American Stonefly Genera (Plecoptera). University of Texas Press, Denton.

21 Usinger, R.L. (ed.) 1956. Aquatic Insects of California. University of California Press, Berkeley. Wiederholm, T. (ed.). 1983. Chironomidae of the holarctic region. Part 1. Larvae. Entomologica Scandinavica Supplement 19:1-457. Wiggens, G.B. 19%. Larvae of the North American Caddisfly Genera (Trichoptera). University of Toronto Press, Canada. Wisseman, R.W. 1996. Benthic Invertebrate Biomonitoring and Bioassessment in Western Montane Streams. Aquatic Biology Associates, Inc., Corvalis, Oregon.

22 APPENDIX B Taxa List for September 1999 Samples DE1-0999 to OL6-0999 SAMPLE I.D. DE1-0999-T1 DE1-0999-T2 DE1-0999-T3 IX-15-99 IX-15-99 IX-15-99 INSECTA Coleoptera Dytiscidae Oreodytes 1 Elmidae Optioservus 23 71 47 Hydrophilidae Laccobius 1 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Chironomini 4 8 Tanytarsini 15 45 84 Orthocladiinae 3 13 7 Tanypodinae 6 6 Dixidae Dixa 1 Empididae Trichoclinocera 4 Pelecorhynchidae Glutops 4 2 Psychodidae Pericoma 1 Simuliidae Simulium 3 1 Tipulidae Dicranota 6 11 4 Limnophila 3 2 1 Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis 3 4 9 Diphetor 62 2 30 Heptageniidae Ironodes 3 Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 5 3 Plecoptera Capniidae 5 1 1 Nemouridae Malenka 14 2 Zapada cinctipes 35 2 29 Perlodidae Isoperla 1 Trichoptera Arctopsychidae Parapsyche 6 1 1 SAMPLE I.D. DE1-0999-T1 DE1-0999-T2 DE1-0999-T3 IX-15-99 IX-15-99 IX-15-99 Uenoidae Neophylax 1 CRUSTACEA Amphipoda Hyalellidae Hyalella 36 23 11 Isopoda Sphaeromatidae Gnorimosphaeroma 51 81 42 ARACHNIDA Acarina Hygrobatidae 2 1 1 Lebertiidae 9 7 5 Sperchonidae 13 3 2 OLIGOCHAETA Lumbricina 5 3 Total number specimens: 298 295 299

DE2-0999-T1 DE2-0999-T2 DE2-0999-T3

IX-15-99 IX-15-99 IX-15-99 INSECTA Coleoptera Elmidae Optioservus 12 25 21 Diptera Ceratopogonidae 1 3 Atrichopogon 1 Chironomidae Chironominae Chironomini 11 4 10 Tanytarsini 141 76 19 Orthocladiinae 5 11 13 Podonominae Boreochlus 6 Tanypodinae 4 7 5 Dixidae Dixa 1 7 Meringodixa 1 2 Empididae Chelifera 1 Trichoclinocera 4 1 Pelecorhynchidae Glutops 1 1 Psychodidae Pericoma 6 Ptychopteridae Ptychoptera 1 10 Simuliidae Simulium 1 SAMPLE I.D. DE2-0999-T1 DE2-0999-T2 DE2-0999-T3 IX-15-99 IX-15-99 IX-15-99 Thaumaleidae Thaumalea 1 Tipulidae Dicranota 1 Tipula 3 Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis 3 1 Diphetor 18 29 35 Heptageniidae Cinygmula 1 Ironodes 4 Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 6 7 1 Plecoptera Capniidae 1 Chloroperlidae Sweltsa 1 3 2 Leuctridae 1 Nemouridae Malenka 1 Soyedina 3 17 Zapada cinctipes 20 11 8 Perlodidae Isoperla 3 1 2 Trichoptera Heteroplectron 1 Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma 2 1 Limnephilidae Cryptochia 1 Psychoglypha 1 1 1 Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 2 1 3 Uenoidae Farula 3 2 CRUSTACEA Isopoda Sphaeromatidae Gnorimosphaeroma 57 94 93 ARACHNIDA Acarina 2 Anisitsiellidae 1 Hygrobatidae 2 2 Lebertiidae 1 2 Sperchonidae 1 1 OLIGOCHAETA Lumbricina 1 2 Total number specimens: 291 293 290 SAMPLE I.D. DE3-0999-T1 DE3-0999-T2 DE3-0999-T3 IX-15-99 IX-15-99 IX-15-99 INSECTA Coleoptera Dytiscidae Oreodytes 1 Elmidae Optioservus 71 80 101 Hydrophilidae 1 1 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Tanytarsini 1 Orthocladiinae 1 Tanypodinae 3 2 6 Simuliidae Simulium 1 2 1 Tipulidae Dicranota 1 1 3 Ephemeroptera Baetidae Diphetor 1 5 Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 2 4 12 Hemiptera Corixidae Sigara 2 Plecoptera Chloroperlidae Sweltsa 1 Nemouridae Malenka 5 10 19 Zapada cinctipes 4 8 9 Trichoptera (pupa) 1 Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma 7 12 4 Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 1 CRUSTACEA Amphipoda Hyalellidae Hyalella 173 149 110 Isopoda Sphaeromatidae Gnorimosphaeroma 1 3 4 Ostracoda Cyprididae 5 ARACHNIDA Acarina Lebertiidae 3 1 Sperchonidae 3 2 13 SAMPLE I.D. DE3-0999-T1 DE3-0999-T2 DE3-0999-T3 IX- 15-99 IX- 15-99 IX- 15-99 OLIGOCHAETA Haplotaxida Naididae 1 Tubificidae 2 1 Lumbricina 6 10 8 NEMATODA Mermithidae 1 Total number specimens: 284 298 298

DE4-0999-T1 DE4-0999-T2 DE4-0999-T3 IX- 16-99 IX- 16-99 IX- 16-99 INSECTA Coleoptera Elmidae Optioservus 94 97 83 Diptera Ceratopogonidae 2 1 Chironomidae Chironominae Chironomini 1 Tanytarsini 11 4 7 Orthocladiinae 5 1 6 Tanypodinae 1 1 3 Dixidae Dixa 1 Pelecorhynchidae Glutops 1 Psychodidae Mariana 1 Simuliidae Simulium 3 1 2 Tipulidae Dicranota 2 1 Tipula 1 Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis 51 78 63 Centroptilum 1 Diphetor 5 15 10 Heptageniidae Cinygmula 7 3 6 Ironodes 11 8 6 Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 13 13 16 Plecoptera Chloroperlidae Sweltsa 1 SAMPLE I.D. DE4-0999-T1 DE4-0999-T2 DE4-0999-T3 IX-16-99 IX-16-99 IX-16-99 Nemouridae Malenka 6 8 1 Zapada cinctipes 21 21 18 Trichoptera Calamoceratidae Heteroplectron 1 Glossosomatidae Glossosoma 1 Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche 44 31 48 Parthina 1 2 Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 3 6 7 CRUSTACEA Isopoda Sphaeromatidae Gnorimosphaeroma 1 2 4 ARACHNIDA Acarina Sperchonidae 8 5 5 OLIGOCHAETA Haplotaxida Naididae 1 Lumbricina 3 1 TURBELLARIA Tricladida Planariidae Dugesia 1 Total number specimens: 298 301 300

DE5-0999-T1 DE5-0999-T2 DE5-0999-T3 IX-16-99 IX-16-99 IX-16-99 INSECTA Coleoptera Elmidae Optioservus 78 47 99 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Tanytarsini 26 49 16 Orthocladiinae 9 13 7 Tanypodinae 2 1 1 Dixidae Dixa 1 1 Pelecorhynchidae Glutops 1 Simuliidae Simulium 7 7 9 SAMPLE I.D. DE5-0999-T1 DE5-0999-T2 DE5-0999-T3 IX-16-99 IX-16-99 IX-16-99 Tipulidae Dicranota 1 1 Hexatoma 1 Limnophila 1 Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis 11 6 9 Diphetor 11 9 Heptageniidae Cinygmula 3 8 Ironodes 14 18 2 Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 16 32 3 Plecoptera Leuctridae 1 Nemouridae Malenka 1 7 Zapada cinctipes 23 20 5 Perlodidae Isoperla 6 8 8 Trichoptera Arctopsychidae Parapsyche 2 1 4 Glossosomatidae Agapetus 16 4 10 Glossosoma 3 2 Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche 2 1 5 Odontoceridae Parthina 1 Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 7 8 16 CRUSTACEA Amphipoda Hyalellidae Hyalella 3 8 1 Isopoda Sphaeromatidae Gnorimosphaeroma 50 32 72 ARACHNIDA Acarina Aturidae 1 Hygrobatidae 1 2 1 Lebertiidae 1 3 7 Sperchonidae 5 5 11 Torrenticolidae 1 OLIGOCHAETA Haplotaxida Naididae 1 Lumbricina 1 1 Total number specimens: 301 295 292 SAMPLE I.D. DE6-0999-T1 DE6-0999-T2 DE6-0999-T3 IX- 16-99 IX- 16-99 IX- 16-99 INSECTA Coleoptera Elmidae Optioservus 55 105 96 Diptera Ceratopogonidae 1 Chironomidae Chironominae Tanytarsini 29 20 34 Orthocladiinae 4 Tanypodinae 1 Dixidae Dixa 1 Empididae Trichoclinocera 1 Muscidae Limnophora 1 Simuliidae Simulium 7 11 1 Tipulidae Dicranota 2 2 2 Limnophila 1 Rhabdomastix 1 Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis 97 73 68 Diphetor 7 4 6 Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 7 6 16 Plecoptera Nemouridae Malenka 30 16 25 Zapada cinctipes 29 29 26 Perlodidae Isoperla 13 7 11 Trichoptera Arctopsychidae Parapsyche 1 2 1 Glossosomatidae Agapetus 1 1 1 Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche 1 1 1 Hydroptila 3 2 Oxyethira 2 Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma 1 Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 2 5 1 SAMPLE I.D. DE6-0999-T1 DE6-0999-T2 DE6-0999-T3 IX-16-99 IX-16-99 IX-16-99 CRUSTACEA Amphipoda Hyalellidae Hyalella 3 5 4 ARACHNIDA Acarina Aturidae 1 Hygrobatidae 1 Lebertiidae 3 6 3 Sperchonidae 2 5 OLIGOCHAETA Lumbricina 3 1 Total number specimens: 299 301 308

OL1-0999-T1 OL1-0999-T2 OL1-0999-T3 IX-9-99 IX-9-99 IX-9-99 INSECTA Coleoptera Dytiscidae Oreodytes 3 1 4 Elmidae Narpus 1 Optioservus 74 66 114 Ordobrevia 1 1 Zaitzevia 34 21 7 Hydraenidae Hydraena 4 Diptera Ceratopogonidae 4 1 2 Chironomidae Chironominae Chironomini 1 2 3 Tanytarsini 5 25 14 Orthocladiinae 61 65 27 Tanypodinae 1 Empididae (pupa) 1 Psychodidae Pericoma 5 Simuliidae Simulium 5 1 1 Tipulidae Dicranota 2 1 Hexatoma 15 5 2 Limnophila 7 Rhabdomastix 1 Ephemeroptera Baetidae Centroptilum 1 Diphetor 2 7 SAMPLE I.D. OL1-0999-T1 OL1-0999-T2 OL1-0999-T3 IX-9-99 IX-9-99 IX-9-99 Heptageniidae Leucrocuta 3 Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 1 2 Plecoptera Chloroperlidae Sweltsa 21 12 11 Nemouridae Malenka 5 7 21 Perlodidae Isoperla 6 1 2 Trichoptera Glossosomatidae Agapetus 7 4 14 Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche 22 17 13 Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma 18 23 16 Philopotamidae Wormaldia 1 1 Gumaga 1 1 ARACHNIDA Acarina Arrenuridae 1 Aturidae 1 Hygrobatidae 1 11 Lebertiidae 2 13 2 Sperchonidae 1 1 1 Torrenticolidae 4 8 9 Total number specimens: 297 286 300

OL2-0999-T1 OL2-0999-T2 OL2-0999-T3 IX-9-99 IX-9-99 IX-9-99 INSECTA Coleoptera Dytiscidae Oreodytes 1 1 Elmidae Narpus 4 Optioservus 30 14 15 Ordobrevia 1 Zaitzevia 8 6 10 Diptera Ceratopogonidae 6 2 3 Chironomidae Chironominae Chironomini 7 2 1 Tanytarsini 84 125 118 SAMPLE I.D. OL2-0999-T1 OL2-0999-T2 OL2-0999-T3 IX-9-99 IX-9-99 IX-9-99 Orthocladiinae 8 13 23 Empididae (pupa) 1 Psychodidae Pericoma 1 Simuliidae Simulium 14 21 Tipulidae Dicranota 1 Hesperocanopa 1 Hexatoma 2 1 6 Rhabdomastix 1 Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis 1 14 9 Centroptilum 1 Diphetor 4 8 6 Heptageniidae Cinygmula 1 1 Leucrocuta 5 2 1 Rhithrogena 4 Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 16 4 Megaloptera Sialidae Sialis 2 Plecoptera Chloroperlidae Sweltsa 2 7 7 Nemouridae Malenka 7 19 Perlidae Calineuria 2 Perlodidae Isoperla 1 Trichoptera Glossosomatidae Agapetus 3 10 8 Glossosoma 1 Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche 1 7 2 Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma 73 40 46 Odontoceridae Parthina 1 Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 2 1 Sericostomatidae Gumaga 1 SAMPLE I.D. OL2-0999-T1 OL2-0999-T2 OL2-0999-T3 IX-9-99 IX-9-99 IX-9-99 ARACHNIDA Acarina Hygrobatidae 2 Lebertiidae 2 2 1 Torrenticolidae 16 11 5 Total number specimens 281 301 308

OL3-0999-T1 OL3-0999-T2 OL3-0999-T3 IX-8-99 IX-8-99 IX-8-99 INSECTA Coleoptera Dytiscidae Oreodytes 2 1 Elmidae Narpus 1 Optioservus 6 10 13 Ordobrevia 3 8 13 Zaitzevia 23 17 14 Diptera Ceratopogonidae 2 4 Chironomidae Chironominae Chironomini 1 1 6 Tanytarsini 47 26 99 Orthocladiinae 13 6 29 Tanypodinae 2 5 Dixidae Dixa 3 Empididae Chelifera 2 Hemerodromia 1 Psychodidae Mariana 1 Simuliidae Simulium 31 57 Tipulidae Antocha 1 Hexatoma 2 1 2 Rhabdomastix 2 2 Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis 33 39 9 Centroptilum 6 Diphetor 26 34 31 Heptageniidae Leucrocuta 1 4 2 Rhithrogena 9 18 2 Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 4 2 2 SAMPLE I.D. OL3-0999-T1 OL3-0999-T2 OL3-0999-T3 IX-9-99 IX-9-99 IX-9-99 Plecoptera Chloroperlidae Sweltsa 7 4 6 Nemouridae Malenka 10 6 5 Zapada cinctipes 1 Perlidae Calineuria 2 1 Perlodidae Isoperla 1 3 Trichoptera Glossosomatidae Agapetus 5 2 2 Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche 11 15 2 Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma 48 17 7 Philopotamidae Wormaldia 3 Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 2 4 Sericostomatidae Gumaga 1 4 ARACHNIDA Acarina Hygrobatidae 1 5 Lebertiidae 2 Torrenticolidae 9 3 21 OLIGOCHAETA Haplotaxida Naididae 2 Total number specimens: 300 286 305

OL4-0999-T1 OL4-0999-T2 OL4-0999-T3 IX-9-99 IX-9-99 IX-9-99 INSECTA Coleoptera Dytiscidae Oreodytes 2 Elmidae Narpus 2 Optioservus 17 11 57 Ordobrevia 4 3 9 Zaitzevia 5 5 10 Diptera Ceratopogonidae 2 3 7 Chironomidae Chironominae Chironomini 8 10 21 Tanytarsini 31 62 30 SAMPLE I.D. OL4-0999-T1 OL4-0999-T2 OL4-0999-T3 IX-9-99 IX-9-99 IX-9-99 Orthocladiinae 19 34 8 Tanypodinae 7 5 Empididae Chelifera 1 1 Psychodidae Mariana 1 Simuliidae Simulium 3 1 4 Tipulidae Dicranota 1 Hexatoma 1 1 3 Limonia 1 Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis 9 7 8 Diphetor 3 4 1 Heptageniidae Leucrocuta/Nixe 2 1 Rhithrogena 50 3 3 Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 6 1 Plecoptera Chloroperlidae Paraperla 4 1 Sweltsa 9 11 13 Leuctridae 1 Nemouridae Malenka 17 2 Perlidae Calineuria 1 Hesperoperla pacifica 2 Perlodidae Isoperla 3 2 1 Trichoptera Micrasema 1 7 2 Glossosomatidae Agapetus 1 1 1 Glossosoma 1 1 Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche 30 42 2 Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma 45 31 70 Philopotamidae Wormaldia 1 2 1 Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 8 38 16 Sericostomatidae Gumaga 4 SAMPLE I.D. OL4-0999-T1 OL4-0999-T2 OL4-0999-T3 IX-9-99 IX-9-99 IX-9-99

ARACHNIDA Acarina Hydryphantidae 1 1 Lebertiidae 1 1 Torrenticolidae 5 1 8 Total number specimens: 290 294 294

OL5-0999-T1 OL5-0999-T2 OL5-0999-T3 IX-8-99 IX-8-99 IX-8-99 INSECTA Coleoptera Dytiscidae Oreodytes 1 Elmidae Narpus 1 Optioservus 7 17 5 Ordobrevia 10 14 Zaitzevia 1 Psephenidae Eubrianax 2 Diptera Ceratopogonidae 4 1 Chironomidae Chironominae Chironomini 4 3 8 Tanytarsini 59 55 36 Orthocladiinae 85 3 7 Tanypodinae 2 Empididae Chelifera 7 Simuliidae Simulium 2 Tipulidae Dicranota 1 Hexatoma 1 Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis 7 1 Centroptilum 2 Diphetor 5 10 3 Ephemerellidae Ephemerella 1 Heptageniidae Cinygmula 4 Leucrocuta 5 1 Rhithrogena 1 Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 3 9 1 SAMPLE I.D. OL5-0999-T1 OL5-0999-T2 OL5-0999-T3 IX-8-99 IX-8-99 IX-8-99 Megaloptera Sialidae Sialis 2 Plecoptera Chloroperlidae Sweltsa 2 Nemouridae Malenka 16 5 2 Perlidae Calineuria 1 Perlodidae Isoperla 1 Trichoptera Arctopsychidae Parapsyche 1 Brachycentridae Micrasema 3 2 1 Calamoceratidae Heteroplectron 1 Glossosomatidae Agapetus 3 1 Glossosoma 1 5 Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche 36 Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma 29 153 212 Philopotamidae Wormaldia 1 Polycentropodidae Polycentropus ' 1 Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 1 3 Sericostomatidae Gumaga 1 Uenoidae Neophylax 2 1 ARACHNIDA Acarina Lebertiidae 1 1 Torrenticolidae 8 3 12 GASTROPODA Pulmonata Physidae Physella 1 Total number specimens: 296 306 300 SAMPLE I.D. OL6-0999-T1 OL6-0999-T2 OL6-0999-T3 IX-8-99 IX-8-99 IX-8-99 INSECTA Coleoptera Dytiscidae Oreodytes 3 Elmidae Narpus 1 1 Optioservus 23 8 27 Ordobrevia 2 19 10 Diptera Ceratopogonidae 5 11 Chironomidae Chironominae Chironomini 7 21 20 Tanytarsini 64 103 90 Orthocladiinae 3 6 23 Tanypodinae 7 4 8 Dixidae Dixa 1 Empididae (pupa) 1 Pelecorhynchidae Glutops 1 1 Psychodidae Maruina 1 5 Tipulidae Antocha 1 Dicranota 1 1 Hexatoma 2 1 Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis 1 1 Centroptilum 1 6 11 Diphetor 12 12 12 Ephemerellidae Ephemerella 1 Heptageniidae Leucrocuta 3 4 7 Rhithrogena 2 Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 4 9 25 Megaloptera Sialidae Sialis 1 1 Odonata Gomphidae 1 Plecoptera Chloroperlidae Paraperla 1 Sweltsa 1 Nemouridae Malenka 8 16 11 SAMPLE I.D. OL6-0999-T1 OL6-0999-T2 OL6-0999-T3 IX-8-99 IX-8-99 IX-8-99 Perlidae Calineuria 1 Perlodidae Isoperla 1 1 Trichoptera Brachycentridae Micrasema 2 2 Calamoceratidae Heteroplectron 2 Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma 125 33 17 Odontoceridae Parthina 1 1 1 Polycentropodidae Polycentropus 1 5 Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 5 3 6 Sericostomatidae Gumaga 4 Uenoidae Neophylax 1 1 2 CRUSTACEA Amphipoda Crangonyctidae Stygobromus 1 ARACHNIDA Acarina Lebertiidae 3 1 Torrenticolidae 10 13 7 Total number specimens: 291 282 310